actually, the "average" LCD does have sharper text than the "average" CRT. however, high end CRT's (sony fw900) and those with a low enough dot pitch can display text just as sharp as an LCD.
apoppin
Lifer
Rollo also always ran his display at 75 hz also
[no wonder he never actually played games]
75 hz gives me a terrible headache . . .
the difference begins at 80hz for me . . . with 85+hz there is no "fatigue" whatsoever.
i doubt i will ever go for the curent gen of LCD
hmmm
edit: i am also nearsighted and sit rather close to my screen . . . even with 12+ hours continuous gaming --no strain at 85hz
[insanity, maybe . . . just no eyestrain]
I know. I have no trouble using 1920x1440 on my monitor except for the intolerable (to me, reminds me of the Amiga's hires interlaced modes) refresh rate flicker. DiamondTrons are one of the best tubes money can buy.
You guys are pretty sensitive. Anything 75Hz and above is no problem for me. I've always found that I lost a lot of sharpness going from 75Hz to 85Hz, so I didn't bother.
Some of the high-end IPS panels are worthy of consideration at this point, though price is an issue. When these new super-CCFL and LED backlights start coming into the high-end mainstream market, then it might make sense to go LCD if you need to replace an old monitor.
Some of the high-end IPS panels are worthy of consideration at this point, though price is an issue. When these new super-CCFL and LED backlights start coming into the high-end mainstream market, then it might make sense to go LCD if you need to replace an old monitor.
i don't think i have super-sensitive eyes, but i find it VERY easy to see the flicker from my peripheral vision (esp. on light backgrounds) at anything less than ~80-85Hz...
apoppin
Lifer
huh?
it's the other way round unless your monitor is [really] budget.
[mine is budget. . . i just got really lucky with it . . . it is nearly perfect]
Originally posted by: apoppin
huh?
it's the other way round unless your monitor is [really] budget.
[mine is budget. . . i just got really lucky with it . . . it is nearly perfect]
Nope, they were both Mitsubishi Diamontrons and they both did it, a 930SB (bought new) and a 2070SB (refurbished). I believe they were both made in Mexico - that may explain it. But in general, when you start hitting the frequency limits of the monitor at a given resolution/refresh rate, the sharpness will deteriorate. Obviously at the resolution you're using, your monitor has no problem handling 85Hz, whereas my 930SB lost sharpness going from 1280x1024@75Hz to 1280x1024@85Hz. 1600x1200 at any refresh was too blurry to use.
My current monitor is budget ($25 used) and has better sharpness and geometry than any monitor I've owned previously (Sony, Mitsubishi, NEC). Unfortunately, it can't do any more than 75Hz at 1600x1200, though I think it would be able to physically handle it, it's beyond spec.
Originally posted by: Dethfrumbelo
Originally posted by: apoppin
huh?
it's the other way round unless your monitor is [really] budget.
[mine is budget. . . i just got really lucky with it . . . it is nearly perfect]
Nope, they were both Mitsubishi Diamontrons and they both did it, a 930SB (bought new) and a 2070SB (refurbished). I believe they were both made in Mexico - that may explain it. But in general, when you start hitting the frequency limits of the monitor at a given resolution/refresh rate, the sharpness will deteriorate. Obviously at the resolution you're using, your monitor has no problem handling 85Hz, whereas my 930SB lost sharpness going from 1280x1024@75Hz to 1280x1024@85Hz. 1600x1200 at any refresh was too blurry to use.
My current monitor is budget ($25 used) and has better sharpness and geometry than any monitor I've owned previously (Sony, Mitsubishi, NEC). Unfortunately, it can't do any more than 75Hz at 1600x1200, though I think it would be able to physically handle it, it's beyond spec.
that's very odd... i've had 3-4 budget (actualy, i got them all free) CRT's between 17" and 21" that didn't lose ANY sharpness at higher refresh rates (even at their max resolutions)... and if anything, the one CRT i've ever actually paid for (my fw900) looks more sharp at the higher refresh rates...
postmortemIA
Diamond Member
- Jul 11, 2006
- 7,721
- 40
- 91
Originally posted by: brikis98
Originally posted by: Dethfrumbelo
Originally posted by: apoppin
huh?
it's the other way round unless your monitor is [really] budget.
[mine is budget. . . i just got really lucky with it . . . it is nearly perfect]
Nope, they were both Mitsubishi Diamontrons and they both did it, a 930SB (bought new) and a 2070SB (refurbished). I believe they were both made in Mexico - that may explain it. But in general, when you start hitting the frequency limits of the monitor at a given resolution/refresh rate, the sharpness will deteriorate. Obviously at the resolution you're using, your monitor has no problem handling 85Hz, whereas my 930SB lost sharpness going from 1280x1024@75Hz to 1280x1024@85Hz. 1600x1200 at any refresh was too blurry to use.
My current monitor is budget ($25 used) and has better sharpness and geometry than any monitor I've owned previously (Sony, Mitsubishi, NEC). Unfortunately, it can't do any more than 75Hz at 1600x1200, though I think it would be able to physically handle it, it's beyond spec.
that's very odd... i've had 3-4 budget (actualy, i got them all free) CRT's between 17" and 21" that didn't lose ANY sharpness at higher refresh rates (even at their max resolutions)... and if anything, the one CRT i've ever actually paid for (my fw900) looks more sharp at the higher refresh rates...
My Sony Trinitron and every monitor I know did same thing: best looks at 60Hz, everything above makes it more blurry. CRT= a nice place in history. Need two resolutions? get two LCDs.
The bad 2070SBs I got exhibited heavy blurriness at refresh rates higher than 85 (and were rather blurry even at 85), but my current one looks identical at any refresh rate. I find 85hz acceptable in games but can notice quite a bit of flicker in Windows with it. This monitor does 1600x1200 at 110hz, so I am using that.
A few facts here on how easy each type of monitor is for the eyes, and text reproduction:
LCDs use fluorescent lighting which can be less comfortable for some. The static image is easier on the eyes though (anything <100Hz gave me eyestrain and at that point the geometry was a little screwy, at least on my CRT). LCDs use high-brightness backlights (and at most settings they are running 200-350 nits). Get yourself a calibration tool and have it adjust your LCD to 120 nits (CRTs are 100 or less). It looks great (unless you have a cheap LCD), and it feels great. Anything less than <.27mm dot pitch will give you optimal text. Anything higher isn't that bad either, but the lower the better.
LCDs use fluorescent lighting which can be less comfortable for some. The static image is easier on the eyes though (anything <100Hz gave me eyestrain and at that point the geometry was a little screwy, at least on my CRT). LCDs use high-brightness backlights (and at most settings they are running 200-350 nits). Get yourself a calibration tool and have it adjust your LCD to 120 nits (CRTs are 100 or less). It looks great (unless you have a cheap LCD), and it feels great. Anything less than <.27mm dot pitch will give you optimal text. Anything higher isn't that bad either, but the lower the better.
With a monitor, a high quality tube is only half the story. Most of the time with cheaper failed CRT's the tube is just fine, its the electronics controlling the tube that fails.
That's why I bought my Philps 109P20 - industrial grade electronics inside it, doesn't suffer the electronics reliablility issues mitsubishi monitors have (bad caps etc).
Poor quality elctronics also directly affect image sharpness - circuit with poor tolerances obviously can't control an electron gun as tightly as a circuit able to maintain tight tolerances.
That's why I bought my Philps 109P20 - industrial grade electronics inside it, doesn't suffer the electronics reliablility issues mitsubishi monitors have (bad caps etc).
Poor quality elctronics also directly affect image sharpness - circuit with poor tolerances obviously can't control an electron gun as tightly as a circuit able to maintain tight tolerances.
ponyo
Lifer
- Feb 14, 2002
- 19,688
- 2,811
- 126
Originally posted by: Dethfrumbelo
Originally posted by: apoppin
huh?
it's the other way round unless your monitor is [really] budget.
[mine is budget. . . i just got really lucky with it . . . it is nearly perfect]
Nope, they were both Mitsubishi Diamontrons and they both did it, a 930SB (bought new) and a 2070SB (refurbished). I believe they were both made in Mexico - that may explain it. But in general, when you start hitting the frequency limits of the monitor at a given resolution/refresh rate, the sharpness will deteriorate. Obviously at the resolution you're using, your monitor has no problem handling 85Hz, whereas my 930SB lost sharpness going from 1280x1024@75Hz to 1280x1024@85Hz. 1600x1200 at any refresh was too blurry to use.
My current monitor is budget ($25 used) and has better sharpness and geometry than any monitor I've owned previously (Sony, Mitsubishi, NEC). Unfortunately, it can't do any more than 75Hz at 1600x1200, though I think it would be able to physically handle it, it's beyond spec.
Yes, lower refresh rate actually gives you better text at higher resolution. You should see the sharpest text at 60Hz but the pain to your eyes will make you go blind.
Running at higher than recommended optimum refresh rate for the given resolution will actually cause premature wear on your CRT. 85Hz is the recommend optimum refresh rate for most resolutions.
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
This thread is'nt meant to say CRT is better than LCD...just to give that high end gaming option again.
Guys there is no fixing blurry and poor convergence on CRTs....just like there is no fixing input lag and motion blur on LCD's
It's a compromise. Until SED comes, then these discussions will end..
Guys there is no fixing blurry and poor convergence on CRTs....just like there is no fixing input lag and motion blur on LCD's
It's a compromise. Until SED comes, then these discussions will end..
Corrective lenses gave me 20/20 or close to it. I said Ive since has lasik, and now have 20/15. I see at least as good as you, if not better. Why do you always have to try and turn everything into an insult? Not everyones bodies are the same, and react the same to things. Some people get bad headaches by CRTs, some dont.
Sure looks like it. You've praised CRTs, and put down LCDs.
It varies for people but an analysis into the technologies reveals why many people get headaches from CRT's.
CRT's draw the image line-by-line, while LCD's draw the whole picture at the same time (I believe).
Personally, CRT's gave me more eye strain (> 2 hours of usage) than LCD's.
Actually he's been pretty objective, especially given the fact that he owns several LCDs, including the 20WMGX2 and multiple high-end AG CRTs.
I concede that a good 8-bit IPS can beat even the best CRTs in contrast and color saturation. My main issue is the slow response time... if they can make considerably faster panels and virtually eliminate blur/lag, then LCDs are a clear winner.
The image stays glowing for quite a while though...it's mainly when it's not being lit (too low of a refresh rate) that your eyes get the fatigue. LCDs paint in a parallel fashion while the CRT has one array of beams (most of the time) to do all the drawing. My point is, SEDs are parallel but they will have the same problem if the screen doesn't stay lit for long enough between refreshes. It will give your eyes the same strain.
Same here.
SEDs should be able to achieve extremely high refresh rates due to there being in effect 1 electron "gun" dedicated to each pixel. The one problem with SEDs is that they might not be able to achieve the level of brightness that LCDs have because of the limitations of the phosphor. They would also suffer from phosphor burnout, producing even less brightness over time... a very high refresh rate would accelerate that.
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Hehe thanks I guess.. Plus I know Frys return desk agents on a first name basis if you know what I mean...But I'm not happy about it...just illustrates my fustration with compromise LCD vs. CRT presents. And LCD's currently is a Compromise on at least three points no matter what these fan boys say it's proven with data.
Originally posted by: postmortemIA
Originally posted by: brikis98
Originally posted by: Dethfrumbelo
Originally posted by: apoppin
huh?
it's the other way round unless your monitor is [really] budget.
[mine is budget. . . i just got really lucky with it . . . it is nearly perfect]
Nope, they were both Mitsubishi Diamontrons and they both did it, a 930SB (bought new) and a 2070SB (refurbished). I believe they were both made in Mexico - that may explain it. But in general, when you start hitting the frequency limits of the monitor at a given resolution/refresh rate, the sharpness will deteriorate. Obviously at the resolution you're using, your monitor has no problem handling 85Hz, whereas my 930SB lost sharpness going from 1280x1024@75Hz to 1280x1024@85Hz. 1600x1200 at any refresh was too blurry to use.
My current monitor is budget ($25 used) and has better sharpness and geometry than any monitor I've owned previously (Sony, Mitsubishi, NEC). Unfortunately, it can't do any more than 75Hz at 1600x1200, though I think it would be able to physically handle it, it's beyond spec.
that's very odd... i've had 3-4 budget (actualy, i got them all free) CRT's between 17" and 21" that didn't lose ANY sharpness at higher refresh rates (even at their max resolutions)... and if anything, the one CRT i've ever actually paid for (my fw900) looks more sharp at the higher refresh rates...
My Sony Trinitron and every monitor I know did same thing: best looks at 60Hz, everything above makes it more blurry. CRT= a nice place in history. Need two resolutions? get two LCDs.
Well, that's just Sony "quality" for you.... Try getting a REAL monitor instead of an expensive label.
Blah, was about to hit the purchase button till I read one thing; "aperture grille". I don't care what opinions some may hold, the most important aspect of any sort of display is realism, and realism is defined as closeness to reality. Reality is alot closer to the dot pitch of ofthe best shadow mask monitors than aperture grille's spaced out little rectangles. Could never have my cake and eat it too though as the best shadow mask monitors were Phillips, which had blah color compared to NEC and late model Trinitrons.
Image detail or color?
Image detail or color?
Owning different hardware, doesnt make you objective. I simply pointed out that in his very first post, he put down LCDs, and has several times since. Has not done the same to CRTs, and then claims this is not a thread to say that CRTs are better than LCDs. It sure looks like it to me.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter